14:00:10 <lajoskatona> #startmeeting neutron_drivers
14:00:10 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Fri Nov 12 14:00:10 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is lajoskatona. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:10 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:10 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_drivers'
14:00:13 <lajoskatona> Hi
14:00:19 <ralonsoh> hi
14:00:41 <slaweq> hi
14:00:51 <haleyb> o/
14:01:36 <mlavalle> o/
14:01:49 <amotoki> hi
14:01:52 <lajoskatona> I think we can start
14:01:57 <lajoskatona> The topic for today: https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1950454
14:02:00 <mlavalle> yes we can
14:02:11 <lajoskatona> [RFE] GW IP and FIP QoS to inherit from network
14:02:25 <lajoskatona> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1950454
14:02:29 <ralonsoh> thanks, let me copy-paste (I have this prepared)
14:02:55 <ralonsoh> The goal is simple: same as with internal ports, have the same inheritance in FIPs and GW ports
14:03:14 <ralonsoh> this rfe consists in these steps
14:03:19 <ralonsoh> 1) Add network QoS policy ID to the FIP OVO
14:03:19 <ralonsoh> 2) [OVN] Implement FIP QoS inheritance
14:03:19 <ralonsoh> 3) [OVS] Implement FIP QoS inheritance
14:03:19 <ralonsoh> 4) [OVS] Implement GW QoS inheritance
14:03:19 <ralonsoh> 5) Add SDK and OSC code to FIP "show" command.
14:04:07 <ralonsoh> any question is welcome
14:04:08 <obondarev> hi
14:04:36 <lajoskatona> as I see this is a logical step, as Liu wrote under the RFE
14:04:51 <mlavalle> honestly, I don't need much convincing. it makes sense
14:04:53 <slaweq> TBH for me it seems like pretty straight forward and obvious improvement which we should have
14:05:14 <ralonsoh> perfect then. Of course, that will need a reno
14:05:22 <ralonsoh> because that could change current behaviour
14:05:31 <ralonsoh> if a customer has a qos on a external network
14:05:53 <slaweq> we can add reno and upgrade check for that
14:06:02 <slaweq> to warn users before upgrade
14:06:04 <ralonsoh> ^^ another step to the list
14:06:17 <lajoskatona> +1
14:06:35 <obondarev> +1
14:06:46 <haleyb> +1
14:07:20 <ralonsoh> thank you all!
14:07:47 <amotoki> it makes sense in general. in case of min bw rule, it may be confusing but I believe it is a responsiblity of users to apply appropriate qos rules, so it does not matter.
14:07:47 <lajoskatona> ok if I understand well we all agree to support this RFE :-)
14:07:55 <mlavalle> yes
14:08:23 <lajoskatona> amotoki: yes, careful documentation is necessary
14:08:39 <lajoskatona> I will mark this RF approved than
14:08:41 <ralonsoh> amotoki, in L3 we support only max-BW. But yes, that will be in the warning message too
14:08:43 <ralonsoh> thanks
14:09:26 <slaweq> that's fastest drivers meeting ever :)
14:09:30 <ralonsoh> hehehe
14:09:47 <amotoki> hehe :)
14:09:54 <lajoskatona> max-BW is better name than bandwidth-limit actually, it's always hard to explain to customers/managers the difference....
14:10:10 <ralonsoh> exactly!
14:10:22 <lajoskatona> ok, so thanks for attending
14:10:33 <mlavalle> are we done?
14:10:47 <lajoskatona> mlavalle: this was the only RFE for today, so yes
14:10:54 <mlavalle> wow!!!
14:11:06 <mlavalle> ok, have a nice weekend, y'all!
14:11:08 <ralonsoh> have a nice weekend
14:11:09 <lajoskatona> if there's anything which we can discuss, please bring it
14:11:14 <slaweq> have a great weekend then :)
14:11:22 <lajoskatona> Have a nice weekend if nothing more :-)
14:11:41 <lajoskatona> #endmeeting